......Auckland is better! Just about fell off my seat when I read this. The human resources consultancy firm Mercer has conducted a survey on over 270 cities worldwide. Link.
39 key quality of living determinants were used , grouped in the following categories:
Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
Socio-cultural environment ( censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc)
Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc)
Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)
Auckland came in as the fifth best city in the world, behind Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver and Vienna. Sydney ranks ninth on the list, ahead of Melbourne at 17, Perth at 21, Brisbane at 31 and Adelaide at 32.
At least in terms of a tourist visit Miranda and I would not rank Auckland so highly - only city where we have been subject to crime in the last 8 years - car break-in. The city itself falls down in terms of architecture and planning - the harbor area is not the equal of Sydney. And its not a cheap palce to live. And the display in the Museum on volcanoes wiped out Auckland multiple time each hour! Seemed almost as bad as earthquakes in California. (Link to Age article.)